Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an AbominationUnder the new legislation, women who want an abortion will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. Where’s the outrage?By Dahlia Lithwick|Posted Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012, at 6:57 PM ET

This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

What’s more, a provision of the law that has received almost no media attention would ensure that a certification by the doctor that the patient either did or didn’t “avail herself of the opportunity” to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat will go into the woman’s medical record. Whether she wants it there or not. I guess they were all out of scarlet letters in Richmond.

So the problem is not just that the woman and her physician (the core relationship protected in Roe) no longer matter at all in deciding whether an abortion is proper. It is that the physician is being commandeered by the state to perform a medically unnecessary procedure upon a woman, despite clear ethical directives to the contrary. (There is no evidence at all that the ultrasound is a medical necessity, and nobody attempted to defend it on those grounds.) As an editorial in the Virginian-Pilot put it recently, “Under any other circumstances, forcing an unwilling person to submit to a vaginal probing would be a violation beyond imagining. Requiring a doctor to commit such an act, especially when medically unnecessary, and to submit to an arbitrary waiting period, is to demand an abrogation of medical ethics, if not common decency.”*Advertisement

Evidently the right of conscience for doctors who oppose abortion are a matter of grave national concern. The ethical and professional obligations of physicians who would merely like to perform their jobs without physically violating their own patients are, however, immaterial. Don’t even bother asking whether this law would have passed had it involved physically penetrating a man instead of a woman without consent. Next month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument about the obscene government overreach that is the individual mandate in President Obama’s health care law. Yet physical intrusion by government into the vagina of a pregnant woman is so urgently needed that the woman herself should be forced to pay for the privilege.

The bill will undoubtedly be enacted into law by the governor, Bob McDonnell, who is gunning hard for a gig as vice president and has already indicated that he will sign the bill. “I think it gives full information,” he said this week on WTOP radio’s “Ask the Governor” program. “To be able to have that information before making what most people would say is a very important, serious, life-changing decision, I think is appropriate.”

That’s been the defense of this type of ultrasound law from the outset; it’s merely “more information” for the mother, and, really, what kind of anti-science Neanderthal opposes information? Pretending that this law is just a technological update on Virginia’s informed consent laws has another benefit: You can shame and violate women, while couching it in the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s gift that keeps on giving—his opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart. That opinion upheld Congress’ partial-birth abortion ban on the grounds that (although there was no real evidence to support this assumption) some women who have abortions will suffer "severe depression" and “regrets” if they aren’t made to understand the implications of what they have done.*

Never mind that the evidence indicates that women forced to see ultrasound images opt to terminate anyhow. According to the American Independent, a new study by Tracy Weitz, assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, shows that “viewing an ultrasound is not an indication that a woman will cancel her scheduled procedure, regardless of what emotional response the sonogram elicits.” Weitz summarized her findings in 2010 when she said that “women do not have abortions because they believe the fetus is not a human or because they don’t know the truth.”

Of course, the bill is unconstitutional. The whole point of the new abortion bans is to force the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. It’s unconstitutional to place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, although it’s anyone’s guess what, precisely, that means. One would be inclined to suspect, however, that unwanted penetration with a medical device violates either the undue burden test or the right to bodily autonomy. But that’s the other catch in this bill. Proponents seem to be of the view that once a woman has allowed a man to penetrate her body once, her right to bodily autonomy has ended.

During the floor debate on Tuesday, Del. C. Todd Gilbert announced that “in the vast majority of these cases, these [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience.” (He has since apologized.) Virginia Democrat Del. David Englin, who opposes the bill, has said Gilbert’s statement “is in line with previous Republican comments on the issue,” recalling one conversation with a GOP lawmaker who told him that women had already made the decision to be "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant." (I confirmed with Englin that this quote was accurate.)*

That’s the same logic that animates the bill’s sponsor in the House of Delegates, Del. Kathy J. Byron, who insisted this week that, “if we want to talk about invasiveness, there's nothing more invasive than the procedure that she is about to have." Decoded, that means that if you are willing to submit to sex and/or an abortion, the state should be allowed to penetrate your body as well.

I asked Del. Englin what recourse there is for the ultrasound law, and he told me that the governor, while unlikely to veto the bill, still has the power to amend it to require the patient’s consent or say that physicians can opt not to do the vaginal probe. One might hope that even the benign act of giving women “more information” not be allowed to happen by forcing it between her legs. Or is that what we call it these days?

Whatever happens in the commonwealth, it’s fair to say it’s no accident that this week the Legislature also enacted a "personhood" law defining life as beginning at conception—a law that may someday criminalize contraception and some miscarriages as well as abortion. Today was not a good day in the War on Women. Abortion is still legal in America. Physically invading a woman’s body against her will still isn’t. Let’s not casually pass laws that upend both principles in the name of helping women make better choices.

Corrections, Feb. 16, 2012: This article originally misidentified the Virginian-Pilot as the Virginia-Pilot. The article also mistakenly characterized Gonzales v. Carhart as striking down the partial-birth ban. It also misidentified Del. David Englin as a representative. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

After reading the Slate article (which I didn't do before my prior post), I'm a little confused here. According to those heartless monsters, it's an abomination to stick an object into a woman's vagina in order to view a healthy, happy baby. However, it's completely acceptable and encouraged to stick an object into a woman's vagina in order to suck her helpless child's brains out via a syringe inserted into it's spinal column. What am I missing here? One of these things sound pleasant and happy, while the other sounds evil and hateful. Please help me decide which is which, since the perspective from the original article appeared to originate from the Twilight Zone.

BTW, I can keep this up for weeks, Wags. Please don't make me resort to the donating aborted fetuses to soup kitchens in order to justify killing babies in the first place meme. I'm willing to sink to the lowest of lows in order to SAVE THE CHILDREN! Try me.

I almost forgot about the helpless murdered fetus babies lying in trashcan photos that are available. I'll post them too. But the most ironic thing is that women would be offended and tormented by long cylindrical objects entering their vagina because of long cylindrical objects that entered their vagina in the first place. It may be difficult, but if libtards can rub two brain cells together, they may comprehend what I just said. It's doubtful, but one can hope.

_________________

February 18th, 2012, 3:01 am

regularjoe12

Def. Coordinator – Teryl Austin

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4212Location: Davison Mi

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

i would want to know the % of abortions paid by the individual as apposed to the % of abortions paid by medicaid. If Im a Viriginia tax payer I may not be intrested in footing an extra bill for no reason whatsoever.

If im gonna shoot you in the face...what good is charging the taxpayers for the bus ride for me to get to your house. yer gonna die either way...why raise the bill for others who have no involvement whatso ever.

If no tax dollars are going to this extra "service" I could not care less.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

February 18th, 2012, 1:41 pm

frok

Varsity Captain

Joined: August 9th, 2004, 1:51 amPosts: 304Location: kalamazoo,mi

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

BillySims wrote:

slybri19 wrote:

Why is it an abomination? If you're about to kill a defenseless baby, shouldn't you be forced to look at an image of your murder victim first?

I agree with Sly on this.

After all, most murderers kill just so they can see the look in their victims eyes.

The real abomination is over 50 Million babies murdered in America since Roe V Wade.

I wonder, out that 50 Million, could 1 of them have :

Cured Cancer or any other major disease?Made a scientific discovery that ended hunger worldwide?ECT.

I wonder how many of them would be mass murders, or just criminals in general, or just dregs on society. Gotta look at both sides.Not that I am for this "procedure". I just wish more people would keep their legs crossed or keep it in there pants until they are in a ....would say marriage, but that not even close to todays world, long term committed relationship. This way maybe we would have less "unwated children" or abortions, better families= less crime ect.

Frok

_________________I feel more like I do now than when I first got here.

February 18th, 2012, 10:16 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3121

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

Quote:

I wonder how many of them would be mass murders, or just criminals in general, or just dregs on society. Gotta look at both sides.

Unwanted babies are statistically much more likely to become criminals and drug addicts than cancer cure-ers and research scientists. It doesn't prove anything, but the crime rate dropped in this country quite dramatically 20 years after Roe v Wade was decided.

February 19th, 2012, 5:29 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

BillySims wrote:

slybri19 wrote:

Why is it an abomination? If you're about to kill a defenseless baby, shouldn't you be forced to look at an image of your murder victim first?

I agree with Sly on this.

After all, most murderers kill just so they can see the look in their victims eyes.

The real abomination is over 50 Million babies murdered in America since Roe V Wade.

I wonder, out that 50 Million, could 1 of them have :

Cured Cancer or any other major disease?Made a scientific discovery that ended hunger worldwide?ECT.

Really? So you think the Govt should be allowed to force a procedure on someone? What happened to the Constitution? and your hatred of ObamaCare? and your hatred of the Govt being in personal lives? Oh, I guess you only hate it when it suits your needs. Nice hypocrisy peeps. Yet another shining example of why our Country is in its current state.

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

Why is it an abomination? If you're about to kill a defenseless baby, shouldn't you be forced to look at an image of your murder victim first?

I agree with Sly on this.

After all, most murderers kill just so they can see the look in their victims eyes.

The real abomination is over 50 Million babies murdered in America since Roe V Wade.

I wonder, out that 50 Million, could 1 of them have :

Cured Cancer or any other major disease?Made a scientific discovery that ended hunger worldwide?ECT.

Really? So you think the Govt should be allowed to force a procedure on someone? What happened to the Constitution? and your hatred of ObamaCare? and your hatred of the Govt being in personal lives? Oh, I guess you only hate it when it suits your needs. Nice hypocrisy peeps. Yet another shining example of why our Country is in its current state.

It is more of a matter of what I, as a tax payer, am willing to foot the bill for. I am willing to pay for am ultrasound. Especially if it causes the mother to forget making me pay for her abortion.

There is no hypocrisy in that.

February 20th, 2012, 12:03 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3121

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

I, as a taxpayer, would be perfectly content to pay for as many abortions as people want to have.

Beats paying 18 years of food stamps, medicare, and housing subsidies. Then prison, and all its costs to the prison system itself and broader judicial system.

I, as a taxpayer, would be perfectly content to pay for as many abortions as people want to have.

Beats paying 18 years of food stamps, medicare, and housing subsidies. Then prison, and all its costs to the prison system itself and broader judicial system.

I guess my morals won't agree with murdering innocent babies. My Bad.

February 20th, 2012, 12:21 pm

thelomasbrowns

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:54 pmPosts: 2871

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

Pro life until you're born.

Don't tread on me--tread on the woman in her 20's.

_________________"Good teams don't worry about a whole lot of stuff. They travel, they play, they win. And it doesn't matter where they go, what the time block is, all those kinds of things. They never seem to bother teams that play well, and we want to be one of those teams." -Jim Caldwell

February 20th, 2012, 12:48 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

Idk... Seems purely sadistic to me.

February 20th, 2012, 1:00 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination

BillySims wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

I, as a taxpayer, would be perfectly content to pay for as many abortions as people want to have.

Beats paying 18 years of food stamps, medicare, and housing subsidies. Then prison, and all its costs to the prison system itself and broader judicial system.

I guess my morals won't agree with murdering innocent babies. My Bad.

My morals don't agree with murdering innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc but yet I am still forced to pay for that.....

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....